Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefangledfeathers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alanscottwalker (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 12 July 2023 (→Oppose: o). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Firefangledfeathers

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been automatically placed on hold pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (197/31/6); Scheduled to end 22:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) – Firefangledfeathers is one of my favorite editors and someone I'm very proud to nominate for adminship. FFF is a knowledgeable and patient editor with quality experience in several fields, including closing discussions, dealing with copyright violations, patrolling new pages and recent changes, and providing third opinions. With close to 50% of his edits to mainspace, FFF is also a competent content creator, with four Did You Knows, one of which is a Good Article (Rosalie Edge), plus three Featured Article save awards with Natalie Clifford Barney, H.D., and Heian Palace. Finally, despite editing around several contentious topics, FFF displays a calm demeanour, but is still able to effectively state his points and is well respected, even with those who may disagree with him. With a deft and keen eye, I believe FFF is someone the admin corps needs moving forwards and will be an excellent admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Vanamonde

I have had my eye on Firefangledfeathers as a candidate for adminship for quite some time now. FFF has the skills and enthusiasm to write content (see his contributions at FAR, in particular) and the ability to do thankless maintenance work well. He has shown he can do content work in difficult areas while remaining calm and respectful toward other editors. Most critically he has the rare ability, essential to a good administrator, to be firm in his convictions while being willing to change his mind. He will make an excellent mop-wielder, and I hope you will join me in supporting him. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Doug Weller

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to endorse Firefangledfeathers. As my co-nominators have said, he is a good content editor with wide experience ranging from simple maintenance (ie the boring stuff) to his work with featured articles. He has shown his ability to handle conflict, one of the most important qualities we need in an Administrator. All in all I have always found him to be a solid editor and I believe will make a solid Administrator.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Many thanks to my nominators for their confidence, compliments, and time. I am honored to accept, and I thank the community in advance for its consideration. I have never edited for pay, and I have one alt account, User:Waterwangledweathers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I love being an editor, and one of the things I enjoy the most is being helpful to other members of the editing community. Some editors and admins I have great respect for (including my nominators) prompted me to consider adminship. If the community will have me, I hope to be the type of admin that supports and encourages content creators, for example by helping to keep the backlog low on request for page protection.
I have experience as a new page patroller, and I could use the tools for things like actioning copyright violation revision deletion requests. My time at WP:ERRORS has been enjoyable, and I can help the admins already there by resolving items on their off hours.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My most focused content creation and revision work has led to three new DYK articles (The Sweet Flypaper of Life, Joseph Ranger (seaman), and Caesar Tarrant), one article improved to GA+DYK (Rosalie Edge), and—with the help of some fantastic collaborators—three Featured Article saves (Natalie Clifford Barney, H.D., and Heian Palace). I've also worked as a DYK, GA, and FAR reviewer to keep those processes running. I am proud too of my behind the scenes work as a copy-editor, third opinion provider, new page patroller, and discussion closer.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have edited in a few contentious topic areas, and I find even the non-contentious ones can generate editing conflicts between good-faith editors. When I'm involved, I do try my best to reach a compromise where doing so will still lead to an article improvement. Weirdly, knowing how bad some articles out there are, including ones that are important to me, helps me worry less about editing conflicts that only come out about 51% in my favor. There are times where compromise is unwise, and I've had my fair share of conflict with vandals and LTAs. I have greatly appreciated swift admin responses in those situations, and I hope to pay the favor forward.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Folly Mox
4. Since you're here, per your userpage do you have any ideas on how to clarify WP:ONUS?
A: FM is referring to a section on my userpage that discusses how interpretations of WP:ONUS (part of the verifiability policy) and WP:BRD (an essay on best editing practices) can lead to or exacerbate edit wars. Briefly, ONUS leads to a bias toward excluding content, while BRD (also the policy WP:NOCON) pushes a bias toward the status quo ante, meaning it can favor inclusion of disputed content. Other editors have worked toward a better harmony between our policies, guidelines, and essays in this area a few times over the past few years (e.g. a 2020 RfC and 1, 2, 3 discussions from last year). Change in this area is hard, in part, because experienced editors have faced both
  • the difficulty in removing obviously poor content from articles being stonewalled and
  • the challenge of having to defend long-standing, collaboratively-developed, quality content from someone armed mostly with just the policy citation.
Depending on which you've experienced the most, or the most recently, you might have drastically differing views on the best path forward. I don't have a preference, except that some more meeting-in-the-middle might lead to less strident edit warring. I could envision something like a footnote to ONUS that cautions against edit-warring and encourages a review of how much time and how many edits have passed since content was added before trying to force removal, especially if the issue isn't pressing for BLP reasons. That said, I do not hope to eliminate all possible contradictions in our policies/guidelines/essays, and good editors know that the best move from either side of the debate is to stop reverting and start discussing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Red-tailed hawk
5. Why did you start editing Wikipedia, and why have you stayed? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A: I have been more than anything else a Wikipedia reader, and most of my early editing experience was small fixes to articles I was reading anyway. As someone who likes to know a little about a lot, I was drawn to gnomish work across a range of articles. Editathons and other events have been a major part of my increased participation here: The Sweet Flypaper of Life and the improvements to Rosalie Edge both came out of events. I am grateful to all the coordinators and project leaders. I have some more overarching beliefs about service and public knowledge that keep me aligned with the work we're doing here, but I feel the most immersion and satisfaction when I'm plugging away at an article or topic with a few other editors, sending the occasional "thank". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Lourdes
6. Thank you for applying fff. I wanted to request your response to the first oppose vote. If you were an admin, and if you were to see a complaint against an editor such as what is listed in the first oppose vote. would you respond in the same way as you did? I am really interested in knowing whether your response will be the same or will it change? Thank you for taking the time to review this query.
A: If the situation were exactly the same, I would not act in an admin capacity; FormalDude and I have worked extensively and positively together, and we have a pleasant off-wiki digital friendship. I would be too WP:INVOLVED to mop that area.
Balancing the benefit of experienced and active editors against the harm of their incivility is challenging for our admin corps as a whole. We also shouldn't expect our volunteers to bear harassment and threats with unerring equanimity. I think one of the best approaches is to seek input on the best action/warning/sanction from other admins and editors. Tamzin's close was reasonable, and I hope to follow her example whenever I'm the right person at the right time to be a closer. I aim to bring compassion to such situations, which is sometimes best expressed with firm boundary-setting.
I am likely to continue contacting editors I respect privately to caution against continued incivility. I've been feeling more motivated to do so since Barkeep49 published their excellent essay "Friends don't let friends get sanctioned". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Chess
7. Looking at your edit history [1], you seem to focus on the American Politics topic area, Gender and sexuality, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Defining said areas as per ArbCom, do you consider yourself to be WP:INVOLVED in those topic areas?
A: I would not consider myself INVOLVED in those broad topic areas as a whole, though there are many individual articles and narrow topics (like "anything about J.K. Rowling") where I would not dream of acting as an admin. There are editors in the broad topic areas you mention with whom I've had both disputes (mostly productive ones) and exceedingly positive interactions; I would not be the right person to use the tools around them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Andrew D.
8. Your user page explains that your username "comes from Of Mere Being, a poem by Wallace Stevens". That's fine but I'm not quite understanding the poem. Why is it special to you, please?
A: I'm glad you read the poem, and I urge you to stick with it for a few more re-readings. In part, it's about enjoyment without understanding, so I hope you liked it even if full understanding (not possible) eluded you. That line speaks to me because of my love of alliteration (no amount is too much), and I associate Stevens and all his work with my spouse, so it all feels special indeed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from NYC Guru
9. Under what conditions would you block a vandal indef or issue a long term rangeblock to a mobile IP network?
A: My understanding of current admin practice is that registered accounts used solely for vandalism are usually blocked indefinitely. IPs—or registered accounts that have some good-faith contributions—that vandalize after the necessary warnings are usually blocked for a short period, and lengthier blocks are considered if the abuse continues. I think this system is working well, though I'm no expert. If common practice needs to change, I hope to see a community discussion at a place like the administrator's noticeboard or the policy village pump. I would be very cautious at all times—and extremely cautious in my early days—when it comes to rangeblocks wider than a /64. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10. Taking a look at the current unblock requests would you be willing to unblock any of them?
A: I used a random number generator to select 7 of the 49 requests that were open when I looked. As a major disclaimer, since I don't currently have access to the admin toolset, I can not see all of the relevant info for some of these blocks. Additionally, I do not have any experience with unblocking editors, so I'm assuming that I am coming across these requests as a more experienced admin, having shadowed some of our current mods with expertise in that area.
Of the seven, I would consider unblocking Kevt2002, who has a fairly well-crafted standard offer request and confirmation from a checkuser that no recent sockpuppetry has been detected. Also, Juanito-Arcoiris-1: the two edits that led to their block were potentially misunderstood. For both these editors, I would want to hear first from the blocking admins, and I would keep a close eye on post-block activity. There's a third, Themoneyblog, where I might ask a question like "If unblocked, do you plan to make any edits mentioning or citing themoneyblog.in?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Optional question from MJL
11. Upon reflection of your level involvement with regards to Eliot Page due to this discussion, would you still make these closes? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing this question. It's not particularly helpful. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Optional question from StonyBrook
12. Your first edit here was on February 1, 2009, and since then you have racked up an impressive roster of useful contributions. According to your edit count page, you have also gone through almost 10 years worth of edit-free months (117 of them to be exact) since that date, including 3 long stretches of consecutive months (31, 12 and 14 respectively) with no editing at all done to this site. For an editor being considered for adminship, do you anticipate there being other long spates of inactivity such as these in the future?
A: From 2009 to 2021, I just wasn't fully hooked yet! Since becoming a more engaged Wikipedian in March 2021, I've been steadily active each month. November 2022 and May 2023 are examples of how I act when especially busy with (mostly good) real-life commitments: at least a few edits a day on average. I do not anticipate being less of a participant than that in the medium term. If I become inactive, I would rather voluntarily set down the user right than wait until the inactivity rules kick in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from from User:Valereee
13. Would you like to address any of the discussion re: Chess's oppose? Completely optional; I only ask because responding to opposes without being directly invited to do so is a bit of a Catch-22 for candidates.
A: I am definitely involved with topics broader than just my edited articles, which is why I mentioned "anything related to J. K. Rowling". To use an example mentioned at talk, I would also say I am involved with Build Back Better Plan, despite never editing that article or its talk page.
Some examples of my past talk page discussion closes are being cited as evidence that I do not understand when I'm involved. I was definitely involved, and would have said so at the time, at Elliot Page and Peter A. McCullough when I closed those discussions. At the Page article, I hoped very much to save some community time on three duplicate discussions about a matter that had both a guideline and an RfC supporting the status quo. I suspected that my involved closure would either turn future discussion toward where it would be most productive or at least consolidate it in one section. At McCullough, I closed a thread started by someone who declared they had "no interest whatsoever" in "improving content on Wikipedia". Though they were admin-esque actions, these closures were easily reversed or bypassed by any editor. I would absolutely not have considered admin actions like blocks or page protection at those articles and talk pages. I think I have improved my involved closure practices of late: I declare that I'm involved, and I offer to reverse the closure on request. You can see that with this early RfC closure, which I re-opened on request (here was the eventual uninvolved closer's statement). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Illusion Flame
14. Which Wikipedia pillar is the most important and why?
A: Pillar Two, neutral point of view, is the only one designated as "non-negotiable", and it explicitly notes that it can't be superseded by the other policies. Obviously, they're all important, and I have a particular fondness for Pillar Three, that Wikipedia is free content. I know that our content is read, copied, and repackaged; I feel it's even more important that we get it right. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
15. You may have already answered this, but could you explain what you have learned from the interaction/situation described in the oppose section?
A: I'm not sure which of the situations you're referring to, but I did post a response to Q13 above. If that doesn't cover what you were asking about, please let me know. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Politrukki
16. Here are two examples where an admin was accused of misusing their tools while INVOLVED: 1 and 2. In your opinion, were the accused admins allowed to use their tools?
A: Levivich's comment in example 1 captures my thoughts well: if the admin erred it was in removing the comment, but it was an admin action. I don't think the follow-up block was an involved action. I'm judging based on the evidence presented in the discussion, not a full review of the admin's editing history.
In example 2, I would say the admin was involved at the time of the block. I have a hardline view on both the definition of vandalism and the definition of "unexplained removal". I think the removal of content was done in good faith, thus not vandalism. The first edit summary was "This is an opinion piece cited by biased unreliable sources. Are you going to post a summary of all "accusations" that are made by biased unreliable sources?"—enough of an explanation to pass my bar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Support DanCherek (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As nom Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Very glad to see this; best of luck! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Frostly (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 23:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support NoahTalk 23:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Tails Wx 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Stephen 23:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Andre🚐 23:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: Net positive, has a clue, so sure, why not? Hey man im josh (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I personally see plenty of good things and no bad things when assessing whether they should be an admin. I have no reason to oppose. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support – a superb editor who I'm confident will be a superb administrator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Looks like a pleasant individual who has both content creation and NPP experience. No concerns. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. One of my favorite editors to work with, they will make a stellar admin. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support A quick scan of the talk page indicates someone with knowledge of how the encyclopedia works, as well as the kind of calm and kindness that I look for in an admin when dealing with less experienced editors. Joyous! Noise! 23:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Upon review, this editor's most-edited Talk pages seem to be in high drama areas, where their contributions seem consistently calm, level-headed, and based in policy. Well rounded in experience including front of house and back of house business. I trust the noms, and it looks like FFF could use the tools. Easy support from me. Folly Mox (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:INVOLVED: an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. I thought Chess did a remarkably insufficient job establishing FFF's edits in contentious topics fell outside this carveout, but I didn't want to badger, and now there's an upswell of opposers per Chess. I wouldn't usually mention this, but I suppose it struck a nerve because one of the main reasons I cited in support (calm, level-headed, policy-based participation in high drama areas) is now being cited without nuance as a reason to oppose (mere participation in high drama areas without any assessment of the content of that participation). As if the goal is administrators acting in an administrative capacity in areas with which they have zero familiarity. Folly Mox (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Heck yeah! LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Fantastic editor, one of my favourite people to interact with on site. Always kind and helpful, exactly what we need in admins. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. This editor has good judgement and keeps an even keel. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Excellent nomination. I have seen just enough of FFF to feel sure he will be a great, all-round administrator. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support excellent candidate. HouseBlastertalk 00:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Splendid choice. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I don't recall any negative interactions with them, though I have vague positive feelings. all seems good. SWinxy (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support have often run into them (w/o directly interacting, as far as I recall) and been impressed by their drama-free cluefulness. Qualities that should serve them well as an admin. Abecedare (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to re-affirm my support for Firefangledfeathers and also push-back on some expansive reading of WP:INVOLVED voiced at this RFA that say that editing in a broad topic such as the ones listed in Q7, (should) prevent one from admining in the whole topic-area. In my experience and opinion that is neither the practice nor should it be one. Being aware of ones personal bias, and appearance of bias, is good but stretching it to such an extreme removes informed adminning and arguably leaves the whole WP:BLP-area unadministrable since I doubt that there many (any?) admins who wouldn't be considered "involved" under such a (re)definition. Full disclosure: see my answers to Q1 at my two RFAs. Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Excellent user. Always found their contributions above-par. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  32. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  33. SUPPORT use of all caps entirely intentional jengod (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've seen them around, and like what I've seen. Miniapolis 02:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Volunteering? Sure, yeah. Get to work. Courcelles (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Another great editor who I thought was already an admin. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 02:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per behaviour here. [2] [3] I found these pages by looking through the context of an oppose vote, but seeing Firefangledfeathers' contributions on just those two archive pages demonstrates a nominee that immediately recognized a POV-pusher months before they were actually indeffed for such as well as an understanding of when to try to de-escalate situations before they turned into an unnecessary ban. They do so by asking probing questions that helped clarified issues editors were having in a way that resolved the dispute. Ironically, we don't have enough admins willing to get into arguments at WP:ANI, and many users that do either end up trying to de-escalate when action is needed or escalate when action is not.
    Looking through Firefangledfeathers' contributions to WP:ANI, I see an editor who is willing to engage with tough conduct issues and generally judges those situations accurately, i.e. is willing to be confrontational and will be so when required. I hope to see them at the WP:DRAMABOARD in the future even though an interest in such is not explicitly mentioned in the nomination.    Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 02:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I retracted this support due to a lack of understanding of WP:INVOLVED from the nominee as demonstrated in A7 and multiple INVOLVED non-admin closures. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 14:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the nominee directly telling another editor to drop the stick is exactly what I want to see more admins doing. I think the nominee should continue telling other editors to drop various sticks if successful. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 03:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Another "I thought they already were" !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Glad to support. No reservations. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming support. I just don't see the evidence to back up concerns about WP:INVOLVED. There was the case I replied to Chess about below, where an article attracted a large amount of drive-by blanking, obvious POV edits, and vandalism, and FFF's only edits were to revert to the status quo (but because FFF made the "mistake" of trying to explain why the drive-by blankers/POV pushers were in the wrong, FFF is labeled involved). In the other case, Elliott Page, FFF describes their own actions as being involved, but within the bounds of WP:CLOSE -- closing stale discussions on the same topic which was addressed multiple times in the past and in the FAQ. Now, I don't agree with that kind of discussion closing -- the fact that they were stale means they could just be left alone to be archived, and closing them just makes it look like discussion of the subject is impossible -- but that's not about WP:INVOLVED. The extent to which it was [in]appropriate to close those is unrelated to involvement. I don't think it was a good idea to do so, and I'd hope FFF thinks more carefully before doing that, especially as an admin, but I don't think it's remotely a deal-breaker. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Level-headed, will be a good admin. ULPS (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose already an admin. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I've only seen this editor add value. May your contributions with the admin tools be as valuable as those you've made without. czar 04:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I honestly thought he was already an admin. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. The candidate has commendable content creation experience, and works in a suitably broad range of areas effectively (i.e., 3O, discussion closing, and RFPP). They do frequent the dramaboards, with ANI being by far their most edited projectspace page, however, upon a cursory glance their contributions are reasonable and civil, so there's no problem with that IMO. Their NPP and deletion participation is also solid, despite their CSD-related experience being quite light per the CSD log and their PageTriage edits. However, the candidate is relatively active in AfDs, with participation there being solidly policy-based. Overall I definitely think Firefangledfeathers would be a net-positive. VickKiang (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I retract one of my comments but do still support similar to other supporters below. I strongly disagree that their content creation is insufficient or checking the box, but the involved concerns are reasonable. These aren’t enough for me to be swayed to oppose but I do hope that the editor is appropriately cautious if dealing with contentious topics. VickKiang (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - careful, judicious temperament we need in admins --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  45. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - I knew they weren't an admin, but think they should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I have reminded myself of the events referred to in the single oppose and disagree with the interpretation presented; i recognise the candidate's name from a whole lot of places; i believe that the admin corps will benefit from the addition...in short, i can find no reason not to support other than that this is a younger account than mine ~ these darn kids are taking over the place! Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 07:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, has clue and tact. — kashmīrī TALK 07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming my support despite Chess's understandable Oppose, however I urge the nominee to study Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW carefully so as to understand where misconstruing of WP:INVOLVED may get them to. — kashmīrī TALK 13:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Volten001 ☎ 07:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Moved to oppose.[reply]
  50. — Trey Maturin™ 08:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I’ve always thought of this user as an admin without tools. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Clearly a good candidate. --Bduke (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  53. FFF hasmy full support --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support – no problems here. Graham87 09:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - solid, intelligent, great temperament. DFlhb (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - content experience and good reputation. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Spire-spangle. I've always seen FFF be a rational, positive force in discussions, great qualities in an administrator. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of a number of head-scratching opposes that fault the candidate for a 100% correct interpretation of policy, in line with the written letter and a decade-plus of community and ArbCom precedent, I have upgraded my !vote to spire-spangle. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support does exactly what an admin should do in the situation cited by the oppose vote. Lightoil (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support No issues here. Level headed, has a clue and would be able to be trusted with the tools with no worries. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  61. I wouldn't usually associate feathers with fire, something so soft juxtaposed with something so destructive. Or maybe duality is the point — a delicate passion perhaps. In any event, they have my Support.  Spintendo  11:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    🔥🪽 Phoenix ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support No concerns. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Mujinga (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support as nom. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Suntooooth, he/him (talk/contribs) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Thought they already were an admin, please fix. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support RFPP could use some more eyes on it, I see no reason not to support, especially not with great administrators supporting this adminship. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - I have no doubt that Wikipedia would benefit from Firefangledfeathers being an admin. - Aoidh (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Glad to see FFF here. AviationFreak💬 13:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support No issues from my side. FFF will make a great admin. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming support. I trust that if this RfA is successful the candidate will take the opposers' views into account when deciding which discussions to close as an admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. The first oppose gave me a concrete example of a conflict they were peripherally involved in and how Firefangledfeathers handles such situations. Their comment was reasonable. I can empathize with Homeostasis07 who felt dismissed, but did not have the same interpretation of that interaction. Thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Beccaynr (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Per nom. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support in smallcaps as a counterpoint to Jengod's allcaps. Cabayi (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - No issues that I can see. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - There isn't any problem with this man, he is a good candidate. Sahas P. (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support – I've seen this user a lot and interacted a few times with them, and everything I've seen tells me that they will be a great admin. Level-headed, empathic (this one is important!), experienced, hard-working, precisely the type of editor we need to wield the mop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support we’ve had fairly limited interactions and I’ve thought about the points raised by Oppose !voters but I don’t see a reason to deny admin tools. Mccapra (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I have seen you around. You will do great with the mop. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  82. Support: I worked on Natalie Clifford Barney for the FAR with FFF, who did much more work on the article than I did, and my impression of them then was only positive. I'm not seeing anything to worry about in either of the opposes – indeed, reading the full Time and New York Times sources cited by Oppose #2 only makes me think that the edit that they take issue with was absolutely correct. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  84. support - solid all around everytime Ive seen them. nableezy - 20:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support They demonstrate a generally high set of competencies. But I also want to note that whether or not they have filled in certain weaknesses as "checking boxes" as part of their preparation for RfA...is completely irrelevant. Either they didn't do it for that reason (in which case it's moot), or they did - in which case we have a candidate capable of identifying weaknesses in their experience and skillset that the community cares about and remedying it. Clearly we should only have admins who luck into their skillsets /s Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Ertrinken 20:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. I expect this candidate will use the mop responsibly. BD2412 T 21:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support My experience of FFF is that they are a solid, stable editor with a good grasp of policy. I think giving them the extra buttons will be a net benefit to the community and the 'pedia. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support No concerns. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Seems like a good and sensible editor, and a good candidate. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Don't see why not. Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support when I've come across this editor they've been helpful. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support I've only had and seen good interactions with FFF. ~ HAL333 00:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Thought they were already an admin. Recall from memory he was one of the first people I interacted with when I first started editing properly. I had made some errors and got that newbie bombardment of TP posts from ticked off editors. FFF was very calm and explained things nicely. This is the kind of person we need as an admin, helpful and patient. Seems skilled also. Good candidate for the tools. As far as I am concerned, anyone who has featured articles and demonstrates a patient temperament shows beyond doubt they have a clue and aren't a jerk. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support – meets my criteria. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Leijurv (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Looks good to me—has CLUE. Thanks for standing. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Solid candidate. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. I've found Firefangledfeathers to be a boon in contentious discussions, where they're consistently seeking npov and always willing to listen to other points of view and compromise. On top of that they have solid experience in content creation, and were even kind enough to give me a hand with some reference formatting for one of my GAs. Lastly, I've seen them mediating in disputes between editors, helping to cool down situations, rather than raising the temperature. Excellent candidate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support I've seen them around, and had a positive impression, figured they might make good admin material. The nominations and much of the above, plus additional investigation into candidate's contributions confirmed my suspicions were correct. Yes, we need more conservative admins, but we need more liberal admins, more centrist admins, and more (English-speaking) Martian admins. User has demonstrated CLUE, temperament, and tenure, so this candidacy should be a clear win for all of us. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support per the noms. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Cherrell410 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support I have only positive associations with times I've seen Fire's name in various pages in which we both edited. Star Mississippi 02:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose - got a clue, has a bunch of work both maintaining and building the encyclopedia, clearly unfit for adminship [sarcasm]. — Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 03:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support clearly a fit for adminship. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 03:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support I haven't had a lot of interaction with them but I see they've been active and do good work. Also there are many people here who's opinion I respect who have great things to say. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. To be honest, I thought that they were one already.. As cliché as that is to say... –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support after a brief look at some contributions and what is written here. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  108. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Soft Support --- While I don't agree with what FFF did earlier ref the oppose 1 incident, I appreciate that they've considered the close that Tamzin took as reasonable (que 6). I have blocked close friends and highly respected editors and have had to face friendly fire for that. But I have attempted to privately contact such friends who may have crossed the line, and I have occasionally reverted their attacks without checking with them. FFF's understanding of this method of collaboration is also promising. I was reading a discussion between an Arb and an administrator yesterday on one case, where the administrator tells the Arb that the term "incivility is prohibited on Wikipedia" (included by drafting Arbs on that case) seems to be off, as incivility is not prohibited on Wikipedia. The Arb linked up to the Arbitration principles page, where the term "prohibited" is written multiple times, and the tenor is very clear there, that incivility, tendentious discussions, and of course attacks, are prohibited (not "strongly discouraged", or "not acceptable", but "prohibited"). We need our editors and prospective administrators such as FFF to somehow undergo a textual cultural change that using intemperate language on other editors leaves significant toxic experiences in individuals, and such individuals would tend over time to not want to collaborate with others anymore, slowly becoming exemplifiers of OWN or just quitting the project. We currently accept incivility to a large extent on this project. The benchmark of what is uncivil has also gone askance to a point that is bemusing. FFF needs to cross that line of bemusement and tow the line of Arb principles, and in fact, I hope there will be a day when the admin corps also does that, and editors follow suit. Irrespective of that, FFF is good to go here. Soft support for them. Lourdes 08:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    saying that I have blocked close friends is a little concerning. WP:INVOLVED also applies to people taking negative actions against people they like and vice versa. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 15:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True that. Lourdes 05:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support: no temperament issues that I can see. Plenty of content creation, skill and experience. — Bilorv (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support: I fully completely support you as an adminship, in my thoughts, you did your best on contributions in order to keep you reach a chance to become an administrator one day, to unlock special tools for you to use. |-CrayonOfWorld92(talk) 09:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  112. SupportI interacted with them at H.D., where they did a fine job.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. I've seen FFF in various discussions over time and have consistently found them to be thoughtful and reasonable. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support – no concerns. – bradv 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. Definitely will make a great admin. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. A really versatile editor, and everything they do seems good to me.—Alalch E. 15:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  118. I don't usually bother to vote in obviously-going-to-pass RfAs recently, but the opposes are sufficiently poor in this one that they merit piling on an additional "Not a jerk, has a clue". --JBL (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. I met FFF during the very long (five talk pages) Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. The point of featured article review WP:FAR is to either delist featured content or to bring it back to the featured article criteria - in other words, looking after content. The Rowling FAR is an example of Wikipedia at its best when a large crew of editors worked together collegially. Later, during the Wikipedia:Featured article review/H.D./archive2, where this somewhat jaded content editor was demotivated, FFF's online demeanor, help, attitude, willingness to work hard, were a motivation to get the work done. FFF is a good content contributor and has clue. Happy so see this. Victoria (tk) 20:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support no concerns. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support per Lightburst's evidence that the user has been contributing quality content by way of GA/FA, and has been actively attempting to uphold NPOV in a difficult topic area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support I see no issues with the candidate’s contributions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - I have seen many of FFF's edits in some of the politically contentious articles I edit, and I respect their judgement and thoughtful edits which I feel have improved articles. They provided a third opinion on a rather complicated (probably 7+ separate issues) content conflict I had with another editor, and I was happy to see that they took the time to do an real in-depth look at the separate issues we disagreed over and provide a well-articulated and thoughtful apprasial. (For the record, in my opinion, FFF supported my positions about 40% and the other editor 60%, so I'm not saying this because they helped me "win" the content conflict.)---Avatar317(talk) 23:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support - No concerns at all. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support, seems good enough. SVcode(Talk) 23:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support per PMC. Dismissively referring to "A few FAs" shows zero understanding of how difficult the FA process is. I'd know, having been through it four times myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - an impressive edit history, and I have yet to see any controversy or issue which would lead me to believe they are untrustworthy. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support per Lightburst, who makes some excellent points about both the candidates ability to contribute content and being able to keep their cool and uphold NPOV in a difficult content area. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Positive experiences, level headed, qualified. Will be a good fit. El_C 09:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Why not? -FASTILY 09:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Not familiar with their work, but I don't see any issues yet and users I respect support them, so why not? SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. I have faith that the fair and verifiable criticisms here will be taken for the future. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Strong support; apologies for only now seeing this, top candidate, full trust, several Featured article save awards, steady and solid character, strong content creator. I will be back after I catch up from travel as I see an oppose below about little content creation, which could not be further from the truth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to add my feedback re opposition statement that "the candidate ... seemed to be checking boxes", evidencing a GA more than nine months ago. The only thing more irritating than an RFA candidate claiming content creation via a recent GA is an RFA candidate with DYK copyvios (common), and the perfunctory GA is anything but typical of Firefangledfeather's editing, where they have dug in over and over on long and difficult FARs, over long periods of time, to build FA-level content. I watch for the "checking all the boxes GAs", oppose those candidates often, and this is not that thing. Why would a candidate with ample experience generating FAs need to check a GA box, anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you see, if a candidate has some GA/FAs, they're ticking boxes, and therefore incompetent to be an admin. If they have no GA/FAs, they're out of touch with content creators, and therefore incompetent to be an admin. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Premeditated Chaos: Maybe you should read my oppose rationale more carefully instead of mischaracterizing it like one of the fake news stations. I guess from an admin named chaos it is expected. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read it several times in fact, and found myself strongly convinced by it to support. (By the way, are we really doing username insults?) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite often, if a candidate has only one GA, they are just ticking boxes. GAs are one-editor opinion re "just good enough". FAs are a whole 'nother matter, and extended involvement with FAs, as FFF has, even more so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up re Chess's oppose at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Firefangledfeathers#J. K. Rowling as an example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - I have had positive experiences with FFF in dealing with controversial topics. I am a little concerned about their responses on involvement, but have confidence that they will heed the comments of the community. The opposition to a lack of content creation is, in my opinion, doubly absurd, because they are a content creator, and, more importantly, content creation should not be a major requirement for admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  137. BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Good candidate for adminship, best wishes Josey Wales Parley 21:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support, of course, as nominator: and I want to note that those opposing based on the candidates understanding of involvement are quite incorrect on policy. It is entirely possible (indeed, it is normal) for administrators to be INVOLVED on narrow topics within a broader contentious area. What matters is whether the candidate can tell when their judgement is compromised, and can avoid administrative action in such cases. FFF has excellent judgement in this regard. I haven't the time to investigate each and every diff below but making necessary procedural closes regardless of involvement is often a good thing, as it is saving the community's time. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Has a clue, stays level-headed enough, have had positive interactions with over time, etc. I'd echo what Nosebagbear said about "checking boxes": it's either irrelevant, or it's a sign of a go-getter who works to overcome their own weaknesses. I fail to see the point of the WP:INVOLVED concerns raised in the opposes; editing some pages in a fantastically broad area like "gender and sexuality" in no way disqualifies someone from taking administrative actions elsewhere. What, are we to forbid administrators from administrating in areas where they are knowledgeable? 3 FA saves is a solid record of high-quality article work. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support having worked with FFF on a difficult, exhaustive, WP:FAR (H.D.) that became an almost full rewrite. I found them then, and since, to be intelligent, hardworking, energetic and possessing an agreeable and supportive manner. Trust FFF with the tools, delighted to see the nom. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Strong support - Firefangledfeathers would be an exceptional admin because they are an exceptional user. I have dealt with them in some different areas and they are always demonstrate top-tier behavior in regards to civility. I've seen them in areas such as American politics they are very fair and maintain a rigid commitment to NPOV. Furthermore, I agree with them on there eloquent response to Q1 about a complex policy issue on Wikipedia. That answer shows the nuance of their comprehension of policy issues that is essential for a successful admin. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support I haven't come across FFF much, maybe because he wasn't around much when I was more active, so normally I wouldn't have participated. Except for: The courteous answer to question #12; Doug Weller; and for being someone who spurred me to write an essay. Good vibes overall. StonyBrook babble 06:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Good candidate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Thank you for answering my questions. NYC Guru (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Pretty good answers. Editor is articulate and patient. Seems experienced enough. Love that user is interested in the inconsistancies in our policies and how to resolve them pragmatically. Seems like mine is just a pile-on support so congrats. Just rememeber to read policies and link and explain if you decide to help resolve any conflict. Most editors who cause problems are under the false impression they are solving them. That's partly why remembering good faith is so important. Explaining things clearly also helps third-party editors who randomly read a discussion understand policy better too. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support – Don't see why any of the things below (in the oppose section) would disallow adminship. We need more admins, content disputes are content disputes—they will always happen. Aza24 (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. I rarely weigh in at RFA, but in this case I have seen enough of the candidate in action to support. No editor (or admin) is perfect, and what was raised by the opposes in this case is not enough to swing my view. --RL0919 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support - Been waiting on this one :D — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Erudite responses to the questions and I have confidence in the nominators. Re oppose !votes, echoing RL0919 above, no one is perfect.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Rzuwig► 19:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support per nom and pretty good answers. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support – no concerns. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support - I am not concerned - History6042 23:07:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - appears clueful, and I don't find the opposes convincing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support Legoktm (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. I think the opposers raise valid concerns, but on review and reflection I am not left with any worries about the candidate's future conduct. -- Visviva (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  160. —Kusma (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm satisfied by the answers to Q6 and Q7. The impressive resume and glowing endorsements above are enough to land me here. — SamX [talk · contribs] 15:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to Q13 worries me but I'm hopeful that FFF will take the feedback from this RfA on board, so I'm not moving to oppose quite yet. — SamX [talk · contribs] 21:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support TheBigBookOfNaturalScience 📖 (💬/📜) 16:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support A strong candidate by all appearances, and I'm not concerned about the INVOLVED issues raised by the opposes. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support I have seen the editor around and have a pretty positive impression. The opposes are worth reading but I think none of them rise to the level to be against becoming an admin and perhaps is a reminder that as an admin: you should be extra cautious about how much you choose to defend your self-identified friends, even when not acting as an admin; and to be open and aware of how INVOLVED might appear, although I think FFF's take on it is about correct. Skynxnex (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support: seems reliable and trustworthy. Ann Teak (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support per SandyGeorgia, Robert McClenon, Folly Mox, and Avatar (the other-party in the dispute FFF settled so well). I'm not sure there are many active editors or admins I'd trust to be better at settling complex disputes. Vaticidalprophet 20:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support: I've seen this editor disagree with me. However, on several memorable occasions, I've seen them take thoughtful and proactive measures that have improved cooperation, promoted consensus, and prevented vandalism. Exactly the sort I want to support. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support While I do think the incident raised by some in the opposition marked a less than optimal handling of the situation in question, it is not enough on balance to move me to oppose. Firefangledfeathers' overall record is such that I am quite comfortable with handing them the tools. We need to remember that what we are deciding is whether or not entrust an experienced editor with a very strong record of contributions and solid judgement, with a few extra tools to help keep things running smoothly in an online encyclopedia. That's it. We are not electing the next pope. Infallibility is not required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Having read the opposes and related talk page discussions, I find myself thinking that the arguments might make more sense if this were ANI and we were considering the scope of a topic ban after a violation. But it isn't, and we're not. I'm ticking the Support box. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support Has a clue. Their involvement in content disputes falls under obvious edits that do not show bias and that's exactly what we should look for in an admin.The void century 05:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support Parabolist (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support The concerns about content creation have been thoroughly debunked by SandyGeorgia, and I have no issues there. The opposition over being INVOLVED seems to be taking a black-or-white approach, where for me things are often more subtle. I don't see "I would not be the right person to use the tools around them" to be a disqualifying remark in regards to the answer to Q7. I've looked at FFF's communication patterns on their talk page and elsewhere, and am convinced they have the appropriate communication skills to handle situations where other editors disagree with them. eg: see Pbritti's support. More to the point, anyone involved in rescuing potentially de-featured articles is a skill in itself, which requires addressing concerns and fixing content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support - I am not convinced that the issues raised in opposition rise to the level of making FFF unsuitable for adminship. I am satisfied with the answer to Q7 - I don't think that editing certain articles makes one INVOLVED for entire topic areas, and FFF seems to have a good grasp of where he would avoid acting in an administrative sense. He might take this RFA as a prompt to be slightly more reserved when closing talk page discussions. Overall, I am seeing an excellent editor with a good temperament and a solid record of content creation who would make a fine admin. WJ94 (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  174. The opposes aren't completely crazy, but I do think they are significantly misrepresenting what FFF is saying about involvement. No concerns from me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support Having read the answer to Q7, the opposes, WP:INVOLVED, and some of the responses above to Chess's oppose, I'm convinced that FFF would make a good admin. --rchard2scout (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support FFF seems to be generally good at dispute resolution and I agree with Chess's now retracted support vote in reading their behavior at ANI; it demonstrates willingness to enter tough discussions as well as a strong ability to navigate them. I understand the INVOLVED concerns here but I don't read FFF's answers as being outside policy. I'm not particularly concerned by their answer to Question 7—it strikes me as reasonable to say that involvement in broad topic areas may be taken case-by-case. FFF's answer to Question 16 demonstrates that they have a solid understanding of INVOLVED and I appreciate Politrukki for identifying good borderline cases to ask about. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support A strong admin candidate, and I don't find the concerns about INVOLVED to be convincing whatsoever. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support per Lightburst and others. Soni (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support - seems like a fine admin candidate. However the oppose votes here tell the real story of exactly what is wrong with our RfA admin selection process and why it needs serious fixing. We are short of admins, need many more to keep the project running smoothly and yet many suitable people will not agree to subject themselves to this very broken process and be subject to the petty attacks, ludicrous arguments and character assassination involved. I have watched all of the RfAs for many years, but have refrained from commenting until now because I don't even want to have my name associated with such a flawed process, but the opposed arguments made in this case left me little choice but to actually say something. The bottom line is that we will never have a sufficient number of admins here, until we fix this broken system of selecting them. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support Although some of them oppose you, I voted support on you. If successful, then your new goal is to partrol and use right carefully. Good luck! ----"Summer"Land4580 (T) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support EvergreenFir (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support based on past interactions, and the testimony of editors who have worked with them on contentious FAs. signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support. Those in the oppose camp would do good for themselves to remember to ignore all rules - particularly, I find FFF's blunt admission directly to Chess that they "would not be the right person to use the tools around [people in the topic areas at question]" to be strong evidence that the spirit of INVOLVED is understood here, even if not the exact lettering. casualdejekyll 23:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support No interaction with this editor that I can recall, but the nominators' word is good enough for me. I do have some advice for the candidate though. When you're an admin, everything you say and everything you do will be taken as admin action by some editors. I once reminded an editor that they could wind up getting blocked if they kept reverting (this just days after an admin had inadvertently strayed over the 3RR line). It wasn't intended as a threat of a block at all but the editor not only took it that way, but to my dismay I found that he carried hurt and pain about it for many years. I hope hope he is over it now, but that feeling of having wronged him remains. So you have to be very careful about what you say. Also, while the rules say that there is a clear distinction between purely administrative actions and involvement, many editors fail to see that distinction. Having a good understanding of INVOLVED is great, but do not forget that you will have to deal with people whose understanding of INVOLVED is at best described as poor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support I have read the arguments of the opposers carefully, and remain unconvinced. Much of the opposition is based on what I believe is an overly expansive view of WP:INVOLVED. Criticizing a candidate for lack of content creation seems strange when 49.6% of their edits are to the main space, and they have excellent contributions to articles assessed GA and FA. Conflating "content creation" with "starting new articles" is a fundamental misunderstanding. Improving and expanding weak existing articles is just as much "content creation" as is starting a new article. Despite what the opposers say, I believe that Wikipedia is better off with Firefangledfeathers as an administrator than the alternative. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: very good point about "content creation". Often expanding existing articles is more responsible than creating new. With regards to involvement, perhaps you'd like to help others by expanding your comment? You edited Paul Pelosi against the community consensus. You seem to have strong opinions about the subject. How would you describe your involvement in the topic area? Politrukki (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support: In unanimous RfAs where I have only a vague positive impression of the candidate from a few interactions, I try not to overstate my default support. But I feel a need to say that it simply can't be the case that constructive editing in a topic area forever precludes one's right to use the tools in your area of expertise and interest – and if that is the rule, it's a bad one. I would love to see evidence that ArbCom or community consensus have stated otherwise. An attempt to pre-empt the candidate out of a topic area they might well be an asset to is not a smart decision – or have we all forgotten how quickly the concerns about Tamzin and American politics faded into nothingness? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    theleekycauldron Much respect to you but in regard to Tamzin, not really. I missed the Tamzin RFA but I would have been an oppose. The fact that someone with incredibly intense views on American politics actually became an administrator is evidence of WP's liberal bias. Tamzin's ivote here in support of FFF gives full-throated vocal support (twice) to an editor who appears to share the same political view. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support Clueful and measured activity behind the scenes, suitably productive out front, seems like a good candidate. This newfound fervour for requiring admins to completely avoid their areas of content contribution has nothing to do with common sense. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support. Any minor concerns surrounding the interpretation of INVOLVED do not outweigh the credentials of an otherwise excellent candidate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support. Answers to Q13 and Q16 have largely alleviated my concerns about understanding involvement. I don't particularly agree with their response to example 1 (Q16), but I might be biased because I know more than what was said in the discussion. (I intentionally left the door open for answer like "not a full review" and that is okay.) It's reassuring that FFF wouldn't consider using their position to exonerate a friend (Q6). They say they would likely "continue contacting editors I respect privately to caution against continued incivility", which sounds nice, though I would recommend doing that on Wikipedia as much as feasible.
    I believe I've had two positive or neutral interactions with FFF, and one negative. In a 2021 discussion they reference "silent consensus" rather correctly. It's a little discomforting that in 2022 in this discussion – this is our "negative" interaction even though we didn't directly address each other – they have forgotten how silent (implicit) consensus works, to quote, "I think there's implicit + some affirmed support for the 'while also' clause." Even though there was never an explicit consensus and the dispute was about a major change to BLP policy, they restored the disputed text (which was finally removed per RFC).
    I understand some rationales to oppose, but largely disagree with them. Administrator's don't need be perfect. Politrukki (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support. LGTM. Drummingman (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support: I have some real-time experience with this user, somewhat more than merely reading their responses to questions here and linked diffs. Based on my personal experience (and my reading of this discussion), I'm sufficiently satisfied the concerns expressed by opposers will not affect FFF's future choices re:INVOLVED except to elevate FFF's own personal expectation of performance. Like other supporters, I trust this user to grow even more as a wikipedian while performing sysop activites. No reason to wait six months. BusterD (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support per nom. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 16:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Fully support the editors nomination. Conlinp (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support To me, the most important qualification to be an admin is temperament, and I have no concerns in that area with FFF. Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support FFF is an asset to the community Combefere ★ Talk 20:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  196. ResonantDistortion 20:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support per Gorilla Warfare and Devonian Wombat. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose: I've had exactly one interaction with Firefangledfeathers that I can remember: here. In that discussion, Firefangledfeathers disregarded a multitude of diff'ed examples of another user's tendentious editing, deleting a potential suicide note, WP:SUPERVOTING at AfD and RfC closures, and gross "fuck-face" insults. Telling me instead to "drop it". The discussion was eventually closed with that reported user receiving a warning for "incivility and edit-warring". Firefangledfeathers obviously doesn't have the prerequisite judgement to be an admin. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer to question 6 is quite enlightening. Firefangledfeathers would have been wise to originally specify in the ANI I linked above that "FormalDude and I have worked extensively and positively together, and we have a pleasant off-wiki digital friendship". To me, it now seems like a clear-cut case of a pal protecting a pal in the face of egregious incivility. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. qedk (t 愛 c) 16:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The candidate has little content creation (only started a few articles) and seemed to be checking boxes like a GA recently and a few recent FAs. I am mostly troubled by their judgement: the oppose ivote above strikes me as it relates to my criteria for administrators: I think they are there to protect content and content creators and in this case telling Homeostasis07 to drop it gives aid and comfort to a bully. Also related to the judgement of the candidate; in 2020 I went to Kenosha Wisconsin to take images of the city after the destructive riots there. Here on Wikipedia we had discussion about the title of the article and eventually we called the events Kenosha unrest which I felt was a whitewashing title. But even worse Firefangledfeathers proposed that we tame the title even more by calling it Kenosha protest. Firefangledfeathers also removed the detail stating that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in self-defense. Even the NYT discusses the acquittal in terms of self-defense. Time (magazine) which opens their article with the line Jurors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s polarizing murder trial agreed with the defense that the teenager acted in self-defense. From my view the actions of Firefangledfeathers suggest questionable judgement and POV pushing. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Preemptively commenting here to ask everyone not to badger this oppose (even though I personally disagree) or start an explosive debate about American politics 🤷🏻‍♂️ the RfA is stressful enough as is. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYTimes was discussing the acquittal in terms of the jury and defense's characterizations, which is not to say that the Times itself was using that characterization. Fff's removal of said characterization, which the adding editor was attempting to make using Wikipedia's voice, was completely appropriate and in-line with WP:NPOV.  Spintendo  19:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're definitely checking boxes, that might be why they quit contributing to WP:ANI and completely avoided mentioning it despite their 263 edits there. [4] It's their most edited page on the project and yet it's not mentioned here in their answer to "have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past?" In order to get elected at RfA, it's necessary to play to the crowd, and the crowd wants FAs/GAs. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 23:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense @Chess:. When I was sanctioned at ANI the candidate was just lurking and did not ivote. I think if you are wanting to be an administrator you need to stick up for content creators, not defend your obviously wrong buddy as the candidate admits to in question 6. I too saw the 263 edits and so went back to see that if they were involved in the 2021 Halloween Purge thread. They were indeed but I think mostly to pop corn and enjoy the show. Lightburst (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Hate to switch my vote, but the nominee not considering themselves involved in any of the three contentious topics mentioned in Q7 is illogical. The nominee seems to believe they are only involved if they have interacted with other editors or have directly edited the page in question. This is incorrect, editors heavily involved in an area don't get to use their admin powers in there. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. I could understand feeling like a few disputes don't count, but the policy only excludes those whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias. Virtually all of their most edited talk pages are in those three CTs.[5] Just in GENSEX, I count 58 edits to Talk:Sex, 50 edits to Talk:J. K. Rowling, 46 to Talk:Kathleen Stock, 36 to Talk:Gender, 27 to Talk:Sex–gender distinction, 26 to Talk:Wi Spa controversy, and many more to dozens of pages in the topic area. A large amount of these edits are comments at RfCs and general disputes over GENSEX. One can also find many comments at WP:AE about GENSEX and the other two topic areas. [6] [7] [8] One might ask why this matters when the nominee is only going to do uncontroversial main page edits or RFPP. Being honest, WP:ANI is this users' most edited page behind their own user talk page. It's hard to believe they're telling the truth in Q3; all signs point to a nominee who is playing the role of a content creator for RfA, then will beeline straight to blocks/AE/etc once they get the bit for life. This is an editor who usually contributes to contentious topics, wants to become an admin, and is telling us directly that they don't feel as if they're involved in a subject area they have hundreds of edits in. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 13:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. qedk (t 愛 c) 22:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose mostly per the issue identified by Chess above. Not being able to identify when one is involved is concerning, especially for an Admin who might be called upon to act in those areas. Intothatdarkness 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per the concerns of Chess. Advocating for the exclusion of negative materials, while claiming to be not involved in such matters is concerning. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Homeostasis07. I didn't find the ANI thread troubling in itself - Firefangledfeathers' only comment there seemed entirely normal - but the answer to question 6 is troubling. If one knows the other person well, especially off-wiki, there is no way they can be unbiased. That should either be disclosed in the comment at ANI, or one simply shouldn't comment in the first place. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per the issues brought up by Chess. I hope that Intothedarkness is correct in their assumption that their misunderstanding of INVOLVED is accidental; if it's not accidental, it's dissimulation. SN54129 08:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Chess. Editing dozens of pages within a topic area makes one WP:INVOLVED in it. Not understanding when one is involved with a whole topic is rather concerning. NoahTalk 10:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose after consideration of the arguements made by Chess and others regarding WP:INVOLVED. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose based on Chess's WP:INVOLVED concerns. Not being able to tell when one is INVOLVED or not can sometimes lead to poor judgement and misguided admin actions. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 16:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - as per Chess & WP:INVOLVED. There seems to be either a curious blind spot here or what looks like disingenuousness, and neither is good. Ingratis (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I think WP:INVOLVED is a very important part of being an administrator, and not understanding it, per the concerns of Chess, is not acceptable. I don’t feel comfortable at this time, sorry 😞. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I feel the candidate has the characteristics of a great administrator, but the failure to understand WP:INVOLVED is a deal-breaker. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Per Chess. Useight (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. As much as I have been trying to stay out of voting in these things lately, the argument by Chess is too worrisome for me to ignore. Too much box-checking to prepare for an RFA ... which concerns me since that makes me believe any behaviors which may have occurred before the box-checking will appear again after the RFA concludes. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose per the candidates interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. I don't edit the American politics area that much, but I edit that area too much for me to use the tools impartially if by some miracle I were ever allowed to become an administrator. I get that a lot of current administrators don't have this mentality and regularly sanction their political opponents or protect pages when they edit war (I won't call them out by name). However, that still doesn't make it right. I don't perform adminy-like actions much, but I have already decided that if I did, Secondary education, Zoology, Religion, American politics, Criminal Justice, and old films would all be completely off limits (with the exception of sockpuppetry, vandalism, copyvios, and serious WP:BLP violations). Any other mentality lacks integrity in my opinion. This is only the second time in history that I have changed a vote in an RFA, but I feel like I have no choice. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scorpions13256: it's great that you have such self-awareness, but did you consider that the candidate may be in a somewhat different position than you? Maybe they don't have as strong opinions as you do, or maybe they mainly edit in areas where they have independent expertise and are trained to taking a professional and disinterested approach. Everyone is biased, but not everyone is biased in the same ways. Compare a journalist working for a high-quality newspaper with a politician campaigning on a particular subject: both will be biased with regard to the subject, but not quite in the same manner or degree. Or compare a professor in the history of religion with the member of some religious movement: whose opinion on religion would you rather trust? Now imagine that the religious movement member of the second example is the journalist from the first example: how bias looks like heavily depends both on the subject and on one's affective/professional/etc. relationship with it.
    Consider what the oppose claim here is: merely the fact of having contributed to articles within three very broad topic areas (AP, GENSEX, AI; see Q7) supposedly means that the candidate should not use admin tools in any of them. What this amounts to is an 'admin topic ban' simply for being a knowledgeable and productive editor. The candidate has indicated in Q7 that within these topic areas there are particular articles in which they have been part of content disputes and so consider themselves WP:INVOLVED (they would not dream of acting as an admin there). They recognize that there are certain editors in these topic areas with which they have had either too negative or too positive interactions to use the admin tools with regard to them (they would not be the right person to use the tools around them). But according to the oppose rationale, this is not enough: admins should stay completely clear from any and all articles within the topic areas they usually edit in.
    This is an extreme position. Maybe it would be appropriate for someone who also has very strong opinions or emotional ties to the topic areas they usually edit in, as described in my first paragraph above. But to hold this as a standard for all admins, even those with a very knowledgeable, disinterested and professional approach, would actually deprive the topic area either of an excellent admin, or of an excellent editor. Don't forget that they are not only not supposed to admin in the areas they edit, they are also not supposed to edit in the areas they admin: there is a very real danger that they would eventually need to stop editing entirely in some areas. All in all, upholding such a standard for involvement would have a large net-negative effect, and fortunately it is not actually the standard that policy currently expects from existing admins. But why, then, expect it from this –by all accounts excellent– candidate? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per the Above. Not going to beat a dead horse. GenQuest "scribble" 22:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose not understanding WP:INVOLVED is worrisome enough to not trust this candidate with the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Chess & other comments relating to WP:INVOLVED. No Lives Left ⸞NᴇᴡTᴀʟᴋ⸟ 06:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Moved from support. Chess' arguments above are sadly convincing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. My thoughts align with Chess' argument. The Night Watch (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose The candidate gives a worrying answer to the straightforward Q7. I wholly agree with the assessment by Chess: WP:INVOLVED is an important part of the behaviour expected from sysops and not having a full grasp of it would seem like a red flag. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Chess and per the editor's seeming belief that voting in an RfC and then closing it is okay as long as you make it clear you're "involved". This is not a good look for an admin and I cannot trust this editor with the tools. I'd been holding off voting waiting on the answer to Q13, but it actually made me more concerned rather than less. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. oppose per Q7 and Q13. Q7 shows a lack of understanding of INVOLVED, and Q13 has the editor doubling down on the misunderstanding. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose because of Ahunt's comments. Willbb234 21:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Ealdgyth. Come back in six months with a better understanding of WP:INVOLVED and I'll happily support. Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per self-closing the RfC and general box-checking trend. Kate the mochii (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. I've been following this all week and wasn't going to participate, but I find FFF's answer to Q13 to be deeply disturbing. WP:INVOLVED is a core principle (and one which has featured prominently in recent arbcom cases). Saying you're going to save some community time is never a valid excuse to close a discussion that you've participated in. I should qualify that. I've often started discussions with "Unless somebody objects, I'm going to ...", and I think it's legitimate to go ahead and do ... if there is indeed no objection. But once somebody has gone to the trouble to label a discussion as an RfC, there's an assumption that it will be closed by an uninvolved party. Even saying, "If anybody disagrees, they can revert" (as you did in Helms) is inappropriate because it puts the onus on somebody else to overrule you. New or less confident editors may be cowed into submission, especially on third-rail topics like anything related to abortion. In the case of Peter A. McCullough and Elliot Page, I've gone back through the histories of those and I'm less sure there's a problem there. But, still, those are both WP:BLPs which have been identified as (to use the current nomenclature) contentious topics. That should set off alarm bells in your head that you should be extra conservative about interpreting WP:INVOLVED. The idea that you would recognize that you were involved but then find a way to justify your actions anyway is antithetical to having a mop. RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith the top 2/3 of your point regarding involved closes for RfCs seems kind of harsh given that the actual RfC page says Any uninvolved editor can post a closing summary of the discussion; if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion., now if your point is that the consensus wasn't being undoubtedly clear, the point can still stand, but I don't think it's inherently readable as such. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear thank you for pointing that out; I was previously unaware of that clause in WP:RFCCLOSE. I'll need to think on this a bit, but I'm still inclined to land on oppose. This wasn't a case of consensus is undoubtedly clear. In any case, I stand by my assertion that when dealing with contentious topics, you really need to bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Attempts to save time almost always backfire, as they often just lead to meta-discussions about process.
    It's likely this RfA will close as successful. To be honest, I don't think that would be a terrible outcome, and I mostly raised my objection to get it on the record. I'm not sure there's much daylight between my position and @Newyorkbrad with his I trust that if this RfA is successful the candidate will take the opposers' views into account when deciding which discussions to close as an admin statement. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  29. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. I wasn't planning on having an opinion, but after reading what Apaugasma said to Scorpions13256 on the subject of involvement, I took a closer look at that policy section. It very much comports with what I and other journalists, as well as public officials, are generally expected to do: avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. This trumps the assumption of good faith that is given to editors, because despite the fact that being an administrator should be no big deal, we are human and as Milgram demonstrated, humans quickly look for authority figures to obey. While I am assuming the candidate really didn't think this was involved, it's quite clear that a significant number of other editors support this interpretation of involvement. Come back in six months.~TPW 13:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  31. As a word to the wise, your answers re involved are concerning, so when you get the bit, as it looks like you will, be very careful around such issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Answers to my questions are pending. Yeah I know you're going to get the broom an mop. And I supported you. NYC Guru (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NYC Guru: I think your question may be difficult to answer as it appears to be based on an incorrect perception that vandalism blocks only recently defaulted to indef. You mention "back in the day" which I assume to be about 4 years ago as your account was created in 2020. As an admin since 2011, I can say with certainty that blocking vandalism-only accounts indefinitely has been routine since I got my bit. The default template for vandalism-only accounts notes the block is indefinite and has done so for well over a decade.-- Ponyobons mots 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: Given the huge number of account getting blocked on the suspicion of "socking", and given the huge number of unblock requests that get denied I have tried to pinpoint why all this happens and why so much time goes in to enforcing "one account" policy and why socking happens to begin with. I've come to the conclusion that the sock creators were blocked indef -- without warning -- and assuming that they were legitimately editing for the first time they really had no idea what content was accepted and what wasn't. In the early days, the one-day or one-week blocks were instructive. The editor know he did something wrong but it was more likely to wait out the block then make another account. Now I ask you, you just got blocked indef and requested an unblock and got denied and you can't even respond because your talk page is locked. Give me one reason not the make another account. If we want truly want to make blocks instructive and not punitive then I believe this has to change. NYC Guru (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you are suggesting is a wholesale change in both policy and practice. An administrator is expected to follow current policy and community consensus; your reply above and leading questions suggest that you would like to see a reply from Firefangledfeathers that demonstrates he would go against such policies and consensus as an admin. I won't reply further, but I think you've put the candidate in an bit of a catch-22. -- Ponyobons mots 21:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied here NYC Guru (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NYC Guru: Blocking is a preventive measure. To get blocked and have one's talk page access revoked, one needs to be particularly disruptive. In many such cases, the block and TPA revocation are an admin's only available choice. In addition, from my experience, the majority of sockpuppeteers were given multiple warnings before they got blocked. I'm not saying this entire process is perfect; there are some cases where users get indeffed even when mentoring may have been a better option. Could you please provide a more specific example? Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nythar, Of course there are cases where blocking indef is called for. I'm not trying to change anything as well as every case is different. If consensus calls for something I can't change it. I've been browsing wikipedia since the middle oughts an I back then then general reaction to vandalism was more based on the severity of contributions. Indef was only used against persistent vandalism. NYC Guru (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Socks are prolific and a large number of accounts to get blocked. Some sockmasters themselves have created large numbers of socks to harass. But the large majority of socks are not blocked on "suspicion", rather a Checkuser, like myself, has been able to technically determine that they are the same editor. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller, how accurate is the IP address data? A lot of these come from high traffic mobile network where hundreds of people log in. NYC Guru (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NYC Guru We don't depend on the IP address data. We are aware of high traffic mobile networks. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My personal experience with socks is that Checkuser is often inconclusive, followed by a block under WP:DUCK (Proverbs 26:11) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. With regret, mostly per Chess' concerns above. FFF is a strong content creator and someone who I've generally viewed as level-headed, but admins intervening in areas they're WP:INVOLVED in has caused problems time and time again. I don't think this concern rises to the level of an oppose, but I'm voting neutral with the hope FFF will take that concern to heart and be considerate with the use of admin powers. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 01:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This rather highlights the problems around the level of emphasis on content creation in selecting administrators. It may be a good idea for a Burger King manager to understand how to cook a burger, but being excellent at that task does not itself qualify someone to be a manager. The same is true on Wikipedia. ~TPW 14:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per ThadeusOfNazereth's words exactly. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 10:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Per Thadeus and per some of the Opposes above, I have some concerns that haven't been completely addressed yet. Shearonink (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I was on the fence and learning towards supporting, but Q13 has kept me on the fence. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Involved closures are not something you do with the assumption that they can be reverted. The fact that this candidate thinks that way is worrying for an admin. I don't want to oppose outright (a misunderstanding of one policy/guideline can be discussed and worked out), but it's not a good sign. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will clarify, I don't think the INVOLVED concerns on Q7 are particularly severe. They're best taken with common sense, and that means editing on the complete opposite side of a topic area from the part of it in which you've been involved is not problematic and shouldn't be a violation of INVOLVED. The discussion around INVOLVED should hopefully serve to make them wary of what they're discussing.
    The RFC closure in Q13 is what gets me – that is something I would immediately go to the talk page of any editor to contest and request they don't do again as against policy. I don't have enough interactions with FFF to say too much on how they'll handle these concerns after the RFA, but I will note my reservations from my reading of this RFA, and I hope they consider them. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I expect this to pass at this point but I do have reservations and my experience is this is basically the last good chance to address any concerns about admin conduct (yes people get desysopped but unfortunately the project generally sustains a large amount of damage before the matter gets resolved). If problems did arise, I would regret it later if I hadn’t said I did agree the concerns flagged here need to be taken on board. Thank you for taking this into consideration. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • Since you've been a contributor at DYK, I hope you'll get involved with the administrative side. We need admins who can do final reviews and promote prep sets to the queues. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • StonyBrook, to me that looks like a very typical "created an account and edited very casually for years when they noticed a typo or something, then a couple years ago got interested in it as a hobby" kind of pattern. FFF made fewer than 100 edits from 2009 - 2020, but since has made over 20,000. Valereee (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. So Firefangledfeathers is a WikiButterfly? StonyBrook babble 06:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Firefangledfeathers&oldid=1165088645"